That's where it starts getting difficult.

Because while you've explained the consequences of the bad side of the status quo, you haven't addressed whether there even is a good side.

And that's always the problem, isn't it?

There's wheat, and there's chaff. There's bathwater, and there's a baby.

The free-speech-absolutist position is, basically, "I'm not throwing out any babies, and you are so bad at distinguishing bathwater from babies that we're leaving all the baths and babies exactly as they are."

That's actually a pretty reasonable position, if there are babies, and you really are that bad at distinguishing babies and bathwater.

So you make a great case that the water's pretty icky. There is a lot of chaff there, quite true. If anyone thought otherwise, well, now it becomes an even more impossible challenge to deny it. (Admittedly, people have been taking masterclasses in denial lately--with the help of social media!--so I'm sure some will find a way to do it.)

But we still don't know what to do.

You gave us as a premise that Telepathy Boy is the worst. What if he wasn't the worst? What if we fear and revile him out of narrow-minded prejudice, not an honest assessment of his character? What if he's not perfect, but our fears make it out to be a force for evil instead of a young Charles Xavier?

I don't think the conversation gets useful until we identify some wheat too, or make a good search for it and come up empty, so as to get a sense of the proportion of wheat and the proportion of chaff. How many babies vs how much bathwater? We probably don't want to throw many civil rights movements out with Pizzagate.

Without that one can't even start to understand the free speech absolutism side. The argument--much like an argument against anarchists--has to be we've got this or at least we can do better, not just "look at this murder therefore there must be police".